of the coöperative activities of individuals for the purpose of regulating their reciprocal relations. The state is a social institution designed to secure the protection of the persons and property of its citizens. Society is thus an earlier and more fundamental organization of humanity which prepared the way for the later development of the state.1 Though society is prior to the state, it is not, in the opinion of Stein, the most elementary type of association. Society grows up gradually from the more primitive and basic stage of "community." Community, tribal society, the territorial state, and modern international society are the chronological stages in social evolution.13 Looked at from another point of view, society is voluntary though conscious in character, and is the chief agency in promoting the interests of the individual. The state is a coercive organ which is mainly concerned with the interests of the community as a whole.1 Again, society is a much more all-inclusive organization of individuals and is much more flexible and plastic than the state.15 After viewing the problem from these various standpoints Stein formulates his final definition of the state as follows: "We may behold in the State, especially in the modern civilized State, the substantial organization of the inevitable subordination and superposition of the individuals and associated groups within it, with the aim of establishing an equilibrium of interests between the legitimate personal necessities of individuals and the interests of the nation and

12 "Par 'société (societas) je comprends avec Morgan un mode de coopération constitué par les individus et réglant leurs rapports réciproques; j'entends au contraire par ‘état' (civitas) une institution ayant pour but d'assurer la possession de la terre, de la protection de la vie et de la propriété à l'intérieur comme à l'extérieur. En s'appuyant sur cette définition, il n'est pas douteux que la 'société ne soit la prémière forme qui précède l'Etat et prépare sa venue.' La Question sociale, p. 114. See also Einführing, pp. 286ff. This is directly contrary to the rather anachronistic views set forth by Henry Jones Ford in his Natural History of the State.

13 "Société et Etat ne coincident jamais et nulle part. La société préétatique (gens) est le prius passager, la société actuelle le postérius de l'Etat. La gens s'est intégrée dans l'Etat. la société actuelle est une différentiation de l'Etat." La Question sociale, pp. 115-220.

14 "La société est surtout la gardienne du choix individuel, l'Etat, le rempart des intérêts communs." Ibid., p. 222. "L'essence de la société consiste don en une action combinée librement choisie, celle de l'Etat dans une action combinée exigible des individus unis en une société, ou en un Etat." Ibid., pp. 226-7.

15 "Les limites de l'Etat se trouvent ainsi plus étroites que celles de la société; avec ce rétrécissement d'horizon il possède en même temps une structure incomparablement plus ferme. La société est de par sa nature incertaine et fluide. l'Etat est au contraire stable et solide. Le lien de la société est le tact, celui de l'Etat est la loi. Les membres de la société sont retenus entre eux par les moeurs, ceux de l'Etat par le droit." Ibid., p. 227.

humanity as a whole which are frequently in conflict with individual interests."

" 16

In contrast with his lengthy discussion of the distinctions between the state and society, Stein devotes little attention to the equally important matter of the differences between the state, the government, and the nation. The term state is employed by him. both in the strict usage of political science and in the popular sense as synonymous with government. At the same time he makes the state include the attributes which are usually assigned to the nation." The state is "un système d'action réciproque des intérêts intellectuels et esthétiques, moraux et religieux des hommes." 18 Such a conception of the state is very similar to the usual definition of a nation. There can be little doubt that Stein's failure to differentiate carefully between the the state and the government, and his subordination of nationality to the state, are a result of his Swiss political environment, where, in a majority of the cantons, the state and the government are practically identical and where a common nationality does not exist, the state being the only unifying agency. In his Einführung in de Soziologie his differentiations are much clearer and he accepts the scientific distinction between the state and the nation.1o

2. The Origin of Political Institutions.

Stein's theory of the origin of the state is a combination of Morgan's theory of social evolution with a moderate version of Gumplowicz's doctrine of the conflict of social groups. The first stage of social evolution was the period of community, which was based on the bond of practically unorganized or undifferentiated bloodrelationship. In this period the only types of social organization were the extremely crude forms of the primitive family and the horde. In his theory of the evolution of the family Stein follows the scheme of development postulated by Morgan which is now thoroughly discredited.20

The next stage of human evolution, or the period of the beginnings of social relations, according to Stein's use of the term "social" came with the development of the gentile organization of society. 16 Ibid, p. 230; cf. Einführung, pp. 334ff.

17 La Question sociale, pp. 222, 227, 230, 265ff.

18 Ibid, p. 230.

19 Op. cit., pp 253ff.

20 La Question sociale, pp. 57ff., 82-3, 115ff. It should be kept in mind, however, that Stein was writing in 1900. when the newer anthropology had not been adequately formulated. In the Einführung, pp. 62-77, he modifies his earlier version in the light of the more recent anthropological research.

While this stage brought a system of regulation of social relations which was, on the whole, adequate to the demands of the time, gentile society was a period of idyllic democracy as compared to the present.21 Stein's representation of the Iroquois as free from the burden of conventionality and custom which oppresses the modern man strongly resembles the Rousseauean variety of anthropology when viewed in the light of the later researches of Hewitt, Parker, and Goldenweiser. The alleged universality of the gentile organization of primitive society has been disproved by critical ethnologists, and even in those places where it did exist it could hardly be deemed the most primitive type of society, unless one accepts Stein's arbitrary definition of society.

Though the gens marked the origin of society, the series of changes which brought in the state began with the development of agriculture. Like many writers from Rousseau to Loria and Oppenheimer, Stein holds that private property in land broke up the primitive felicity and paved the way for the immediate development of the state.22 Agriculture created a need for slave labor, and the ensuing raids upon neighboring bands to secure slaves produced the earliest wars and brought about the origin of the warrior class. The dangers of attacks from others led to a differentiation of the population of each group into two fundamental classes of warriors or protectors and laborers or producers.23 Either offensive or defensive warfare, if successful, required an effective centralization of power, and when the gens conferred upon the leader the power to compel the group to bow to his will the essence of the state had appeared. Democratic communism was then well on its way to a transformation into absolute monarchy. The increased wealth of the chief made it possible for him to render his power more secure and enabled him to assume new functions. As industry and social relations developed, conflicting interests appeared within society, particularly between the servile class and its masters. The state was able to extend its influence here by adjusting the differences between these contending parties which threatened the integrity of society.24

This period of conquest and the integration of groups was an essential stage in the development of political institutions. Tribal communities and small nations have always been doomed to perpetual warfare and arrested development. Only by means of large

21 Ibid., pp. 117-118. 22 Ibid., pp. 119-120.

23 Ibid., pp. 119. 124. 24 Ibid., p. 120-122.

scale warfare could a sufficient degree of integration be effected so that a compact and powerful state could be formed. Paradoxical as it may seem, centuries of warfare were required as a preparation for the final cessation of war.25 Besides this, war provided a valuable discipline for the race.26

27

War being thus an essential agent in the integration of states and the discipline of society and the human mind, the more vigorous the warfare the more rapidly this bloody but necessary stage in social evolution could be completed. Therefore, the great conquerors of history while morally little more than assassins on a large and picturesque scale, really rendered a great service to the progress of civilization without being aware of the fact.28

While Stein thus practically agrees with Gumplowicz, Ratzenhofer and Ward in regard to the process by which the State originated, he does not hold with Gumplowicz that progress must always be a result of the conflict of groups. The formation of the large and compact state by war is but the necessary preparatory period to the gradual cessation of war and the achievement of progress through the development of coöperative activities, the division of labor and legislation based upon the sound principles of sociology.29 In this respect the doctrine of Stein greatly resembles the position taken by Lester F. Ward. Both emphasize the teleological nature of future progress.30 The national territorial state is not, however, the last stage in social evolution. Already modern society, international in most of its interests and activities, has become more powerful and important than the national state. Man's voluntary activities, which are separate from the activities of the state, are

25 Ibid., pp. 123-2, 457, 461.

26 "Un bon maintien du corps, la sobriété et la persévérance opiniâtre, l'éducation d'hommes vigoureux, une discipline absolue, la joie du sacrifice, les liens de la camaraderie, sont la propriété exclusive des peuples exercés par l'esprit militaire." Ibid., p. 461.

27 "Un massacre en masse conduisant à une intégration immédiate de l'Etat est préferable à l'hypocrisie des guérillas perpétuelles entre petites tribus et petites nations." Ibid., p. 123.

28 "Ces assassins grandioses donnent à la civilisation une poussée puissante égale à celle de plusieurs siècles. . . . Ils ont plus fait four la civilisation réelle que toute une armée de sentimentaux douillets." Ibid., pp. 123-4.

29 Ibid., pp. 123-4, 352f., 450ff.

30 Gumplowicz is criticized for his exaggerations, op. cit., p. 119, note. Cf. Einführung, pp. 161ff., 226ff.

now preponderant.31 The national state will be followed by the socialized state and a society of states.

3. Sovereignty and the Principle of Authority in Human Society.

33

In an interesting article entitled, "Die Träger der Autorität." 32 Stein analyzes the nature and value of the principle of authority in society and traces the changes in the nature, sources, and organs of authority throughout history. The principle of authority is as important for the maintenance of the race as the principle of selfpreservation is for the individual. Those who wield authority in society are the instrumentality for the education and discipline of the social will.34 Stein finds that the organs of social authority have been successively: "1. die elterliche, 2. die göttliche, 3. die priesterliche, 4. die königliche, 5. die staatlich-militärische, 6. die rechtliche, 7. die Schulautorität, 8. die Wissenschaftsautorität." 35 Stein further maintains that in the course of the historic changes in the sources and organs of social authority, institutions have displaced persons as the bearers of authority in society; that, whereas originally authority was imposed by individuals upon the community, now the group imposes its authority upon individuals; and, finally, that, while in the past authority was wielded for the selfish interest of the individuals in power, at present it is consciously employed by the community for the purpose of securing social discipline and progressive improvement of the welfare of the group.38 The changes in the nature, sources, organs, and conceptions of social authority have been correlated with successive stages of social development and different types of civilization.37

While Stein in no place analyzes in detail the nature and importance of sovereignty, considered in the technical or conventional con

31 Les rapports et traditions de famille, les états professionels dans toutes leurs ramifications, les communautés d'intérêts dans des complications et des déplacements sans nombre, les associations libres, professionaelles, sportives, religieuses, artistiques, pédagogiques, scientifiques, de compagnonage, etc., associations en partie internationales, dans leurs nuances à peine perceptibles; voilà ce que présente la 'société' moderne.. Aucun Etat avancé ne peut longtemps résister à l'ordre suprême de la 'société'." La Question sociale, p. 220; cf. Einführung, pp. 253-86, 441-54.

32 Published in the Archiv fur Rechts-und Wirtschaftsphilosophie, Oct., 1907, pp. 44-65; cf. also Einführung, pp. 388ff.

33 Loc. cit., p. 44.

34 Ibid., p. 54.

35 Ibid., p. 49.

36 Ibid., pp. 52, 54, 55, 56.

37 Ibid., p. 49.

This notion harmonizes with Professor Giddings view of the social foundations and the evolution of sovereignty; see Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXI, No. 1.